Calling it like it is with the press-created SestakGate:
Whatever the collection of facts about White House officials attempting to influence primary elections is, it is not a scandal. It is not the type of story that journalists with credibility and experience should be selecting to cover. It’s the type of story that journalists ought to resist covering, precisely because the act of giving it attention elevates the arguments that don’t correspond with the truth. If journalism is good for anything, it is to provide what Republican Bruce Bartlett calls “quality control” over the narrative. Well, a big mess just slipped by.
Where the White House erred is obvious. In claiming to hold themselves to an ethereal, fairly impossible ethical standard, they are partly responsible for the casual criminalization of regular political discourse. In some ways, this White House has been more transparent and more committed to generally accepted ethical practices. Although Obama never promised to abstain from politics, he invited some of this scrutiny by refusing to delineate what he found acceptable and what he did not. But this is a venial sin compared to the transgressions of organized journalism.
I wish I had something intelligent to add, but I don’t. Anyway, more of this, please.
NobodySpecial
I have heard wingnuts discuss horse-trading as if it’s something that didn’t come into history until 2009, and who faint in faux horror at the thought of someone paying off someone else without using money or oil shares.
Napoleon
Which is exactly why a clown like Dan Balz at the WaPo went in with both feet on the story today.
Jenn
I liked his one from yesterday, too, where he staked out where he stood on being a journalist, and how he aimed to follow through in the future. I thought it was great.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/-pdf10-truth-telling-and-shaming/57608/
aimai
I’m sorry, the notion that Obama and his administration have added in any way to the “casual criminalization of political discourse” is just nuts. The notion that he “invited” any of this shit because *like every other candidate in the world* he proposed to *not run as a crook* and then unlike all other candidates *actually has run a fairly scandal free administration* is also kind of bizarre.
aimai
What the hell is the “casual criminalization of political discourse” anyway? Obama’s administration has specifically refused to actually investigate criminal acts by previous administrations, has not engaged in any of the mud slinging and oppo research that the Republicans have with respect to their *own party* and in general stayed out of the “political discourse” far too much.
KCinDC
Generally good, but I have some problems with the second, blame-Obama paragraph.
jwb
@Napoleon: It’s all just part of the kitchen sink strategy: keep throwing everything in the hopes that something will stick. Personally, I don’t think this one will be around much longer—if for no other reason, too much other stuff going on at the moment.
ruemara
“casual criminalization”? WTF? Some good, some absolute crap. boo.
Pamela F
@Napoleon:
The new York Times also jumped in with both feet with their editorial entitled: “The White House Employment Agency”. Basically, Obama isn’t living up to his very own promise of sainthood.
Athenae
But I thought only the filthy Internet blogs jumped on baseless innuendo and scandal to ruin everything? Did Ceiling Cat lie to me?
A.
TooManyJens
@NobodySpecial:
What do you expect from people who had never heard of teleprompters until 2008?
PaulW
@NobodySpecial:
The deal is, the only political crimes that occured over the centuries according to the far right wingnuts took place during these years: 1976-1980, 1992-2000, and 2008-until Obama gets impeached. If you go back far enough in the wingnut history book, there’s also entire decades of political criminality – 1960 to 68, 1933 to 1952, and whichever term of office Grover Cleveland didn’t send in troops to shut down worker strikes – that they find inexcusible.
This is what you’ll find in the newly revised Conservapedia version of our schools’ textbooks. Any surprises there?
Redshift
Fascinating. So the administration “[claimed] to hold themselves to an ethereal, fairly impossible ethical standard,” but “invited some of this scrutiny by refusing to delineate what he found acceptable and what he did not.” Gee, I must have missed when Bush “delineated what he found acceptable and what he did not.” (Of course, the few times Bush did declare something “unacceptable,” it was a pretty safe bet that his administration was actually doing it.)
This is somewhat reminiscent of the GOP bozo congressman of the day yesterday trying to claim a contradiction between “promising to run the most transparent administration in history” and “negotiating behind closed doors.” It’s obviously possible to do both, and it’s equally obvious that demands from the always secretive and corrupt GOP to conduct every step of every process in public are nothing but an attempt to engineer failure.
Redshift
@Athenae: Time for a blogger ethics panel!
Redshirt
Typical Repug playbook – launch as many charges as possible, accuse the other guy of doing the very things you do all the time, smear, lie, and then hope some of it sticks. Oh yeah, be sure the media follows your every narrative.
I pray to FSM repugs don’t get control of the houses this fall, as inevitably it will be special prosecutor after special prosecutor over NOTHING.
And then your “Average American” will accuse Obama of corruption with no facts, no details, but just cuz he heard something about it on Fox news. And now he knows.
Jenn
@KCinDC:
You mean the one that Ambinder is quoting??
Re. the “casual criminalization” that Ambinder refers to; I guess I can quibble with his wording along with the rest of you, but if I’m right in my interpretation of what Ambers is saying, I kind of agree. Given the Obama administration repeatedly gets hit from both left and right about perceived failures in transparency/ethics what-have-you, compared to what he campaigned upon, I think it’s fair to bring up that since the campaign never really defined (or at least I’ve never seen such a definition) the standard by which they were going to consider themselves transparent and ethical, now everyone and their dog who has a gripe about something can tie that gripe to the Obama administration’s failure-to-be-the-most-ethical-adminstration-evah, which of course in the media gets translated as being unethical, and a Big Story. It’s not (necessarily) that the administration is doing anything wrong, it’s just the ease of ceding the narrative.
ETA: I believe this may be the longest run-on sentence, ever!
Cat Lady
Hopefully Ambinder picks up Fallows’ cudgel and continues to beat the MSM about the head and neck. The point he makes in a previous post is one he could have gotten from the commenters here:
I’m waiting for him to start naming names. I’m looking at you, Gregory.
KCinDC
@Jenn, no, I mean the second paragraph DougJ quotes — Ambinder’s last paragraph. It’s typical “savvy” behavior, writing a fairly acceptable criticism of Republican craziness and then tacking on a bogus criticism of Democrats to blame both sides.
I was too restrained in my reaction above. I’m with aimai and Redshift.
slag
@Jenn: I liked that too. Although I would have liked it better had he encouraged the shaming of tabloid journalists/commentators in the process. And maybe of journalists/commentators who go on the teevee telling people to “suck on this.” I don’t see Maureen Dowd or Tom Friedman being disinvited to any of the big dances, after all.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
I’m waiting for him to start naming names. I’m looking at you, Gregory.
You mean Mr. Fluffy?
bobbo
“he invited some of this scrutiny by refusing to delineate what he found acceptable and what he did not.”
Jenn
@KCinDC:
Yeah, again, I guess I’m just not interpreting that final paragraph the same way you guys did … did you read the full article? I’m not reading that as a “blame the Democrats” line, so much as part of an explanation for the administration ceding the narrative/opening themselves up to attacks, because I see a lot of liberal bloggers using that lack of a definition to cudgel the administration, too. “The Obama administration isn’t releasing X information. They campaigned on being the most transparent administration ever. They have failed, and are no better than Bush.” Yada, yada, yada.
Redshift
@Jenn: Yeah, it’s pretty amazing how many people can’t understand that to be the “most transparent administration ever” you don’t have to release absolutely everything, you just have to better than all the others. That’s a standard no one tries to argue they’re failing, because they obviously aren’t.
Jenn
@slag:
Yeah, no kidding! I really liked the last bit, though.
Nick
@aimai: Yes but the other Presidents weren’t expected to live up to their promises. The press is treating this like a scandal because it’s their way of saying “HAHA YOU STUPID N*GG*R. WE TOLD YOU YOU COULDN’T BE TRANSFORMATIONAL! NOW YOUR SUPPORTERS THINK YOU’RE NO BETTER THAN HILLARY OR MCCAIN! BETCHA WISH YOU HAD STAYED IN THE STATE SENATE NOW, DONCHA?”
slag
@aimai: Honestly, I’m on board with holding Obama to a higher standard. Not for the “ethereal” reasons that Ambinder suggests but because I think Obama should be held to a higher standard (as should everyone else, but that’s a different subject).
In Obama’s case, he comes off as someone who has the real capacity for being an honest broker. Not because of any promises he makes or has made but because he has displayed a genuine ability for serious introspection and thoughtful analysis. More so than any other president I can recall offhand. And it’s that ability (not the reality of his past or present actions) that gives people the sense that he should be more honest than most. In other words, he has a stronger sense of where the boundaries between right and wrong are (whether or not he always stays between them). He’s thought a lot about them and defined them well. That capacity is a major strength and, consequently, is also a major weakness. People expect more from those who have more to offer. I see no problem with that.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I’ll agree that about 20% of this story comes from that, but every administration announces their high ethical standard–Carter will never lie to us, Dumbya promised us honor dignity when he put his hand on that “Bahbbil”–but what this nonsense really illustrates is the way a still-bitch-slapped political media still resonds to whatever button the GOP-RNC-FNC axis chooses to push. If Darrell Issa and Sean Hannity say it’s a story, David Gregory and Campbell Brown will bring their mad reporting skillz to bear, asking James Carville and Mary Matalin to explain it all to us.
Cat Lady
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:
Yes, Fluffy. Perfect nym for a ridiculous person.
Paula
I don’t really ascribe to the idea that Obama has a set of unreasonable expectations set up for him as a black politician that isn’t there for white politicians … except when I watch shit like this go down. Like, Obama is the first ever president in the history of the United States to renege on certain promises, to fall short of ideals. What a failure. How stupid were we to think this electing someone non-white would result in anything transformational?
slag
@Jenn: Yeah. I read that as an argument for trying to shame the individuals and groups these journalists/commentators are covering. Not as an argument for trying to shame each other. But maybe shaming these journalists/commentators was the whole point of the post, and I just didn’t catch that vibe. In a sense, I feel like shame has to be fairly direct and overt. But probably that’s not true.
Paula
@slag:
In my cynicism, I assume that’s just one of his many charismatic PR skillz … but which doesn’t have any real bearing on how he actually makes decisions or conducts himself. Why would anyone all of a sudden believe every word coming out of any politician’s mouth, even if that person is someone like Obama?
aimai
@slag:
Well, sure, people in hell will want icewater. Look, as far as I can see Obama *has* given everyone all the transparency and ethics they are entitled to ask for. The entire argument that Jenn say, on behalf of unnamed people on the left, that Obama has disappointed someone because of something is just utter and total crap.
Obama has disappointed me, qua civil libertarian and qua anti war activist in plenty of ways. But as far as *transparency* and *ethics* are concerned I’ve got no beef with him. And if I haven’t, I don’t think anyone to the left or the right of me has any right to. Because I have very high ethical standards. And Obama has met them in an administrative sense. This horse trading, and politicking, taht the press and the right wing are complaining about aren’t anywhere near the line of ethical/unethical behavior. Its complete nonsense. Obama didn’t promise–didn’t even hint at–being able to govern from an ivory tower with nothing but angels at his side. He simply proposed to try to run things a little cleaner, a little more sensibly, a little more sciency, a lot more open and honest than Bush. And by gum he’s done it.
aimai
licensed to kill time
__
The MSM loves them some big mess to slip around in. They live and breathe for the Big Mess. If a Big Mess doesn’t exist, they have to create one.
It’s the Big Emessyem.
slag
@Paula: Maybe that’s true and that capacity isn’t more present in Obama than it is in anyone else. I often doubt it myself. But then, I throw in the Michelle Obama factor, and I have to think that it is present. She’s not a “politician’s wife”. My conclusion is that either they’re both the best two fakers this country has ever seen or the capacity is there. It just goes unfulfilled more than I’d like.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Jenn:
Why didn’t Larison make the cut? I would’ve put him near the front of the lineup. Perhaps that’s just an accident of writing, or does it say something about who Ambinder reads and who he ignores?
slag
@aimai:
Haha. Very true. I guess it depends on how much weight or importance people put on this kind of thing. Personally, I’m with you and I don’t put much on it at all, but that’s my own judgment.
I have no problem with people in the press putting something in front of me to judge for myself. Especially when it’s something that might possibly concern me because I do hold this administration to a higher standard. But once they’ve done that, it should be over. Finis. The end. If they keep harping and making a big deal out of it, then that’s them creating a scandal–not reporting one. It’s not like anything that happened here is a big mystery.
I’m only suggesting that the door should indeed be a little more open for them to bring this up as a possible issue.
cat48
Issa has decided to investigate the Cabinet members dealings with the WH political office, just like Waxman did to Bush he says. This should be more complicated than investigating WH emails that he feels are too partisan in tone or “Chicago style” political deals.
wag
@slag:
I’m on board as well. And truth be told Obama has more than lived up to my expectations. Minor political horse trading? BFD. Maybe it rises to the level of a minor irritation.
It sure as hell doesn’t rise to the High Crimes and Misdemeanors of the Bush years
ricky
In a scathing attack Armbinder names names. Uh, USA today and an op-ed piece?
slag
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ: And Matt Lewis? Really?
The Other Chuck
Frankly, I hope the story keeps going. It’s driving Issa absolutely bonkers, and that’s a good thing in my book.
And is it just my reading, or did Ambinder write that paragraph just so he could say “ethereal” and “delineate” in order to look smart? I have no problems with an expansive vocabulary used properly, but obviously gratuitous flourishes are what they are.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@aimai:
Ditto that.
To the extent that complaints about transparency in this admin are sincere criticism and not merely bad faith mud flinging on the part of opponents, I think it may be because folks are confusing transparency in govt. operations with transparency in political decision making.
It seems pretty clear to me that Obama’s preferred approach to making decisions is to build in-house consensus behind the final policy choice and to avoid fighting internal battles out in the open via the press.
Not out of a fetish for secrecy, but out of a strong concern for consensus building and for giving in-house critics a chance to make their points and to feel that they were not shut out of the debate to begin with – that the terms of debate are fair even to minority positions – inside the administration.
The debate over our war strategy in Afghanistan very much had that feel to it.
And then once a decision is made, everybody is expected to line up behind it rather than refighting old battles and airing dirty laundry in public.
This style of management comes through very clearly in Jonathan Alter’s recent book The Promise.
And there is a lot to like about this consensus building management style, but one of the limits of it is that the circle of critics has to be small enough to be manageable, or nothing ever gets decided (or alternatively consensus is never achieved and the system fails its own metric).
Which inevitably leaves critics who are outside the admin. feeling marginalized, neglected and shut out.
But that is political decision making.
Transparency in govt. operations is a different matter.
The latter pertains to what the admin. is doing, the former is regarding why they have chosen to do it.
I don’t see any way we can enforce much more in the way of transparency with regard to motivations without attempting to abolish politics itself within the admin.
And attempting to do that leads down the path towards a Robespierrean Dictatoriship of Virtue where policy is decided on the basis of the sincerity of feeling and the moral purity of the advocate.
No thank you, I’d rather not actually.
Jenn
@slag:
When I read your post, I had to go back and re-read. The first part I read as general declarations to the public, but I’m reading those last 2 paragraphs as saying that the conservative journalist-punditosphere needs to grab their courage (and sense of morality) and put them to good use policing their asshole brethren.
For all that I hate David Frum’s politics (and oh, boy, do I), I admire that he’s drawn a line in the sand, and that he’s been willing to pay a price for it. There are a lot of “sane conservatives” out there, but very few are exhibiting any kind of courage whatever in trying to push back the crazy.
slag
@Jenn: I doubt Frum is paying nearly as much of a price as people are suggesting. In fact, I think he’s very much benefiting from our “soft bigotry of low expectations”. But I hear what you’re saying.
Jenn
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
Good question. I’d guess that he was just naming 6 off the top of his head, but then I say that because I read Larison, too! I certainly agree he belongs on the list.
Jenn
@slag:
I think Frum has paid a price from the right. I also think he’s benefited because now he’s the conservative version of “even the liberal New Republic”, and has been able to garner some degree of support (for lack of a better term) from the center-left, as a result. But I’m not sure that the originator of the term “axis of evil” would have counted on that when he started to push back against the crazy in his own ranks, so I tally it in the courage column.
I don’t know. It just feels like that conservative no-dissent mindset so prevalent in the days after 9-11 has been mutated and turned in on themselves, now that it no longer works on the rest of us! And given how I sometimes felt I had to gear up to voice dissent to people I knew didn’t agree with me, I guess I just want to reward/acknowledge folks when they do the same.
Tecumseh
The problem in criticizing Obama for not having an open enough government is how exactly open do you want him to be? Should there be camera’s following him around 24 hours a day like a reality show or the Truman Show? There’s certain things I’m okay with not being revealed (I never really cared about the issue over White House visitor logs for instance). I’m not saying there aren’t legitimate things to criticize him for either in the past or in the future but like a lot of Obama’s Presidency, everyone’s expecting perfection and being huffy when it’s not.
Besides, there’s a Catch-22 here. If Obama stonewalled everything like the Bushies did, the press would just give up and go away. So he’s open and gets in trouble for it while also being hit for not being open enough. It’s like the HCR debate– everybody was upset that for the most part he didn’t a lot of horse-trading and behind-the-scenes politicking like LBJ would do but then if he did it, the moment he did, everybody would have accused him of making backroom deals and horse-trading.
Tazistan Jen
@Paula:
You know, I don’t actually think it is race with the kool kidz of the press (although that adds an extra tangy sauce). I really think it is because they are wired for republican rule. The exact same nothingburger bullshit was thrown at Clinton constantly. When stuff wasn’t simply made up, it was common politician behavior that became outrageous when and because Clinton did it. Google “Clinton Rules” for much more on this.
And, while I wasn’t paying the same kind of attention when Carter was president, I wouldn’t be surprised if he got the same kind of double standard treatment. He certainly seems to me to have been a much better president than he gets credit for, for whatever reason.
Cheryl from Maryland
@KCinDC: Yes. @Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle: That’s Mr. Fluffer.
Rook
Sigh.
I thought you got rid of those talking ads. If I hear “Congratulations, You Won.” One more time, I am going Galt on this blog………..
mclaren
The Republicans and the Beltway journos are being driven absolutely wild by the Obama White House’s lack of scandal.
Same deal as with Bill Clinton. Big Bill did not have a single member of his administration who was indicted for taking bribes. He ran a squeaky-clean administration, just like Obama. After Ronald “The Cruel Man With the Constant Smile” Reagan’s astoundingly corrupt slime pit, in which 135 members of Reagan’s thieving gang got indicted or resigned to avoid indictment and the Attorney General, Ed Meese, wound up going to prison, the Washington insiders couldn’t believe it. Clinton’s lack of corrupt West Wing appointees drove the beltway pundits mad with rage. It violated the sacred principle of equivalence…according to which, if a Republican does it, all the Democrats must be doing exactly the same thing.
Nope.
Turns out there are huge differences between modern Democrat and Republican White Houses. Aside from lying America into illegal wars of aggression and torturing innocent Afghan cab drivers to death, one of the biggest differences is that Republicans turn the White House into a corrupt rotten sleazy bribe-driven cesspool of theft and cronyism whereas Democrats run squeaky-clean administrations with zero indictments for corruption.
So of course our darling press corps (which lives by the principle of phony equivalence — if Republicans do it, then by God, all Democrats must be just as bad!) has thrown a conniption fit hunting for evidence that the Obama White House is just as corrupt as the White House of the drunk driving C student was. And the Washington press corps will find that evidence, even if they have to manufacture it.